rickc rickc:
What hypocrisy? The President of the United States nominates candidates for the Supreme Court. The Senate calls ALL the shots on the nomination process. The Senate decides whether to proceed. The Senate confirms or rejects nominations.
The way that the senate is elected is stacked in favour of Republicans because it's not real representation. To ignore this is hilarious to me. But hey, democracy is going down the shitter in your country and you, along with millions of other Americans, don't really seem to give a shit.
$1:
Its that simple. What is so hard to understand about that? The party that controls the Senate controls the Supreme Court nomination process. The Senate has not filled a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888.
Oh I see your listening to your republican talking points. Tell me, how many Supreme Court vacancies have there been in an election year of a divided government while the senate has been sitting since 1888?
I'll give you a hint, it's zero. So lets dispense with this meaningless statistic.
$1:
That is a long time. Long before any of us were born, so lets not pretend that the whole Merrick Garland thing is a new thing created by the GOP.
Except it is. It absolutely is. 6 justices have left a vacancy in an election year since then. 4 were not a divided government. 1 was 1888. 1 the justice left in the middle of october when the senate wasn't sitting (for the election), so one was appointed during recess and later confirmed after the election. The last one the could have occurred was 1888. And guess what? They were allowed to vote on it. So yes, Moscow Mitch not allowing for a vote on Merrick Garland was the first time that had happened in history as far as I can see. Not even CONSIDERING the nomination, that from as far as I can tell was the first time in history. He set the precedent.
$1:
Divided government, election year, no Supreme Court confirmation. Long track record. 132 years to be exact. Divided government being the catch phrase here. There is no divided government now. The GOP controls the White House and the Senate. They are free to proceed with the confirmation process.
That was the last time it could have happened. I'm curious, of the last 6 times there has been a vacancy during an election year, when was the last time it was literally weeks away from an election? I'll give you a hint, the only time it was even remotely this close, confirmation happened after the election.
$1:
Senator Reid and the democrats were the first to use the nuclear option to kill a filibuster. Now its going to bite them in the ass. What goes around, comes around. They made their bed, let them lay in it. What is hypocritical about that?
$1:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
If you don't see the hypocrisy of saying that in 2016 and turning around and doing the complete opposite 4 years later, then I honestly can't help you. If this is the response who, compared to many in your country, is reasonably intelligent, it's no wonder your country is literally on fire and dying.
$1:
What is up with the insults and why are you taking this so personal? LOL! I do not recommend a political career for you if you get this worked up about politics in another country.
1) Because the USA stupidity affects everyone on the planet.
2) Because there are people in your government who want a theocracy.
3) Because I actually give a shit about my fellow man, and I have concerns of the USA regressing and women, PoC, and the LGBT community losing rights because of a stacked supreme court. It should ALWAYS be balanced. Otherwise you lose a major check in the system of government. And considering we've seen another major one fail spectacularly in the last year, suddenly you're allowing corruption and the ability for major abuses of power to be wielded. Having 6 liberal or 6 conservative judges is not a good thing.
CKA Moderator 
